Venandi

It's interesting to watch. People with eyes to see and ears to hear are catching on now. They see what's happening in their cities and they're beginning to pay attention because they're scared... they see things getting worse and they realize that it's reached a threshold were it affects them, or someone they know, or someone who they can readily relate to through shared experiences / exposure to the threat. This is actually how you get busy people who don't want to be bothered with something to pay attention. All the liberal talking points (including the ones on display right here) are starting to ring hollow when these folks begin to join the cause, effect, response, and observed results dots. Average people are now being forced to think pragmatically about this (against their will BTW) and it shines a light on the sort of liberal logic that grows best in the dark. Previously, they didn't bother taking the time to understand the problem, they just wanted it to go away, to see some action that sounded good, and as is the case with most folks, to follow someone who says "I have a plan, I can fix this, follow me." It seems that the media are becoming sensitive to the unease now and beginning to pay attention, we're seeing the first fumbling attempts at thoughtful analysis and for scared people, it tends to confirm the nagging thought that we're collectively headed in the wrong direction and the more we press on the gas peddle the deeper the mud gets. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/nonsensical-trudeau-gun-ban-yet The technique of doubling down on ridiculous talking points has been over used to the detriment of those talking, they now have to shout and shouting just makes them look silly... the collection of nonsense words thrown together in a wilted salad no longer matches the view seen from the kitchen window. Average people, who didn't want to be bothered worrying about this are now saying WTF for the first time.

And your dad should have practiced on himself before castrating the piglets and cutting off their little tails. They have this thing called Castr-gate now, it makes the job a lot easier, relax... dogs don't fit in it.

Really? I think you need to get out more. LOL, I'd recommend warm places where people don't like each other. Look doggie.... I can do that down vote sh^% too. I can even do it twice.

I sure don't see it that way. We have such short memories IMO... Citizens actually voted for all this. And in terms of arrogance, polarized voters have politicians beat hands down... just pick some of the more obnoxious keyboard warriors on this very forum and look at their posting history. For the most part, JT told us what he was going to do, and the things he didn't specifically tell us about were 100% predictable to anyone who was paying attention. Can anyone honestly say they're surprised at what's happened? People (particularly in the US) voted for politicians who openly campaigned on defunding police, then they complained about rising crime. In the last election some 70% of Canadians were in favour of the very carbon tax they now despise. During Covid, 70% were in favour of vaccine mandates (and passports)... almost 30% of those folks were open to the notion of warehousing the unvaxed in what amounted to segregation camps and 18% (of that 30%) qualified as all in "lets do it." Most of the young women now complaining about women's sports and lost scholarship opportunities were the very ones leading the charge on transgender rights. As an aside, I should probably admit that I'm using those percentages from memory... I don't have time to look them up but I think i'm in the ballpark. The point is, no one wants to admit this now, no one will admit that they cheered when their neighbours got fired, remember the blatant, manifestly hateful comments directed at the unvaccinated by people who didn't understand the science behind their concerns at the most basic high school level. It's still on display right here... instead of actually answering one of the questions I asked, one particular clown posted a meme saying STFU. It reminds me of things like residential schools and eugenics...where the hell are those voters who previously thought these things were a good idea? Not peep one from them. For the same amount of time I've been branded as a racist xenophobe for suggesting that we tread carefully in terms of security, that we should closely monitor demographic concentrations and avoid warehousing new arrivals, and that we should take care not to exceed the capabilities of our infrastructure. All common sense ideas that come instantly to mind for anyone who vacationed in warm countries wearing a blue hat. Now the people who called me those names are talking about things like deportations. How many of these folks admit to having a total reversal of opinion... the answer is NONE. Now that the inevitable has happened and happened to such an extent that even the dullest are beginning to see the effects, they actually have the gall to blame politicians for giving them exactly what they wanted. Is there a better example than that of people who voted to become sanctuary cities who are now whining about paying the taxes to support the very thing they demanded. Like, what did you think was going to happen? Were you expecting another outcome here?

This is from a month ago. JT celebrating the anniversary of his handgun ban. Surprise - it turns out that restricting law abiding citizens has little effect on criminals... the police get it, liberal voters still don't though. As it stands now, the carnage will continue until they do get it, or better yet, until the next election when their epidemic of madness officially fizzles out. The wedge issues may be clever but people are catching on to them now. If anecdotal "gym talk" actually translates into votes, these guys are going to get utterly crushed, and it's well deserved. I just thought of a plan to curb impaired driving and keep Canadians safe... we'll simply ban vehicles with an engine displacement over 2.1 litres. Makes perfect sense... right Herb?

I'm not a cross bow guy but the higher draw weight (typically 100 lbs if memory serves) equates to more power and more speed at release. I've fired an acquaintances rig a few times (with a scope) and felt like a sniper with each and every shot. Bulls eye after bulls eye... very consistent, hard hitting and deadly accurate. Actually, the accuracy it achieves with minimum effort( and experience) is the very reason I have no interest in them. Ya I know... if it isn't difficult I don't do it, bare bow folks are funny that way. Cross bow is a separate endorsement for bow hunting... I have both but don't use either. That said, If i actually was going bow hunting I would opt for the crossbow because its inherent qualities actually make it more ethical... not less. Subject to range limitations, it's every bit as effective as a rifle. The same could be said about traditional bows BTW... a 50 lb draw is required for moose as I recall. Anyway, I don't mean to sound like an authority on cross bows, with about 15 shots to my credit I'm anything but... IMO though, and from what I've seen of them, you have the ethical aspect of cross bows 100% wrong.

That's largely because of the absence of meaningful action to deal with it and I'd suggest it's because the effort itself is costly, time consuming and labour intensive. Making lists, grand pronouncements and the mass banning of firearms that are statistically irrelevant to the problem at hand should be insulting to anyone concerned about gun violence... and yet somehow it isn't. The government has spent large sums of money on this and has yet to accomplish anything... or collect a single one of those guns (which again) aren't part of the problem anyway. Some might ask why and there are two reasons IMO, the first is to create a powerful wedge issue with their base, you can see that right here... there is no meaningful discussion about the type of firearms being banned, the statistical instances of their use in crimes, or the likely benefit of doing this vs the cost of implementing the ban... is there? It's all hysterical rhetoric, ridicule and name calling amongst a group of people who graduated from high school decades ago and should be fu^%$#@ ashamed of their conduct. The kicker is, that was the exact goal of the governments action here in the first place. The second is strictly financial, the cost of this bogus effort is far and away cheeper (and optically more impactful) than the expense and hard work required to do what actually needs to be done could ever be. As I see it, the people who should really be offended here aren't gun owners, it's party supporters and anyone else with a sincere desire to reduce the instances of gun violence in major urban centres... so how is it that the cynical, weak sister performance of your government isn't cause for outrage among the party faithful? Most people with strong views on gun control haven't made the slightest effort to research/understand what's actually going on here and the government knows it. If people actually did that, not only would they not be ridiculing competitive shooters, they'd be absolutely pi$$ed at the government itself. Take a moment and look at the firearm regulations in Mexico (among the strictest to found anywhere) and compare those rules with the results achieved. If I were them (meaning part of the crowd who holds this governments ethics) I'd be doing the exact same thing they're doing for exactly the same reasons they're doing it. I'd also repeat the same t-shirt slogans as often as possible too, like: "My government will never apologize for keeping Canadians safe." If the job was being done properly, the difference in views you mentioned (above) would be rendered just as irrelevant as my personal distain for golf... none of you would care about my hobbies in the slightest because you would have no reason to.

The US second amendment and regulatory environment is often trotted out as if it had some relevance or was comparable (in some way) to Canadian rules. It gets a lot of play but it's about as relevant as the global warming implications of space aliens eating cats. I think there are two solitudes here and they're unbridgeable without hands on experience. Quoting statistics is no more effective in dealing with these folks than the examination of facts driving Toronto's gun violence... that's right under their noses yet cause and effect continues to be ignored with tragic results. This gun grab was about creating a wedge issue in anticipation of an upcoming election. The tactics are utterly transparent, I would have done exactly the same thing... the cynical selection of release and implementation dates was a master stroke IMO. As I see it, the reason nobody believes that racing stripes convert 1/2 ton trucks to race cars is because everyone and his damn dog knows everything they need to know about cars and instantly recognizes the absurdity of that proposition. Tying to convince people that cars cause impaired driving, or racing stripes cause stunting is equally futile and falls flat for the same reason. So... If you're a hobbyist, or better yet a competitive shooter in any discipline, make a point of taking any hard core anti gun folks you're acquainted with to the range as often as you can. Do it start to Finnish, explain the storage and transport regulations en route and be sure to include some of the amusing overlaps with hunting regulations... there are some archery got ya's that are absurd enough to make any hard core liberal laugh. It should be fun and enjoyable for them, I've done it many times as a kind of introductory instructional session... the results have always been more positive than I expected. Nothing you do or say on this forum will have the same effect...

Ya, the most thoughtful and reasonable conclusion you could come up with eh? I love the timing of this grab though, tactically I would have done the same thing in their place. It's an easy wedge issue and there's more of those to come IMO. The announcement and implementation dates are as tactically sound as they are cynical... the message is vote for us or you're at risk of being shot and that message clearly resonates with those who haven't taken the time to thoroughly research the issue. It reminds me of the Covid debacle... people with the strongest opinions always seem to be the most ill informed and it only takes a few basic questions to out them. As an aside, when it comes to archery I'm a bare bow guy, not much use for compounds and cross bows with range pins and scopes on them. Bullseye after bullseye is boring and I don't bother with them for that reason, but that's just me. We sometimes have open houses at our range and it's fun taking an anti firearms acquaintance who has never fired a handgun, rifle, or used a bow. All of the folks I've taken thoroughly enjoyed the outing... some have gone back with me for a second helping and all of them said they now understand why I spend so much time, effort and money on an activity they previously found too appalling to even consider trying. In a similar vein, I always ask these folks what firearms regulation they would invoke if they were the King of Canada for a day. Invariably they will come up with one that already exists and they're surprised to find out that it's more restrictive than what they had in mind. For those who don't get it, here's the draw (at least for me)... in short It's a demanding skill that can only be achieved with attention to detail. Martial arts are analogous here, especially anatomically centric ones like BJJ and Aikido. Even the loudest of loons aren't suggesting that people with black belts in both disciplines are the ones mugging old ladies Consistently achieving groupings under 4 inches with a bare bow at 20 metres and beyond will take you a while to achieve and some effort to maintain. If it were easy, I wouldn't bother doing it. There's a delicious irony in all of this that's utterly lost on liberal loons who think that duck hunters from PEI are the ones shooting up the streets of Toronto...the safest place they could possibly be in Toronto is at a sanctioned IPSC competition. Here's another safety irony that defies logic IMO: the AR15 is so damn dangerous that it can only be safely stored in the hands of those people who already own them. The phrase "assault style rifle" is another fascinating construct that has loon feathers attached to it. If it doesn't have selective fire it isn't an assault rifle any more than your pickup truck qualifies as a F1 race car by virtue of adding racing stripes. And, (AND)... they've been fu^%$#@ illegal in Canada for years. So who exactly do you think you're fooling here? There are exactly zero countries in the world currently using semi automatic rifles with five round magazines as a main battle rifle. On the plus side though, sending these critters to Ukraine is exactly the sort of effort Ukrainians have come to expect from virtue signalling progressive Canadian loons who lack clue one.

A thoughtful and timely response that's caused me to rethink all of my concerns... thanks for your input.

Question: Answer: There ya go... the reason I'm unable to attain your level of critical thinking. It also explains my lack of motivation to try.

Actually I think the question is pretty basic and one of the things that should come instantly to mind when you "think critically" about lipids, spike protein toxicity, and the BBB. Granted, the answer is likely to be complex but the question most definitely isn't. My hesitation in sharing your optimism lies in the absence of solid answers and it's compounded by the deafening lack of sensible questions being posed by faithful adherents whose argument of choice is usually ridicule. The act of taking things on faith (IMO) abandons the very concept of critical thinking you were in favour of making mandatory moments ago. As to the historical safety of mRNA technology, I was simply asking on behalf of those cute little Black Footed Ferrets... the ones who are no longer with us. Got to run... Cheers

Cool... But we haven't even begun to see the potential long term effects of mRNA technology yet. Maybe you're right, but one things for sure and for certain... one of the two sides has it desperately wrong. Given your obvious penchant for critical thinking, how is it that you aren't the least bit concerned about the down stream effects of lipid nanoparticles and systemic distribution given the toxicity of the spike protein itself... particularly (IMO) as it applies to BBB penetration over the long term? What exactly has convinced you that my concerns are a nothing burger at best and a complete fabrication by a card carrying member of the walking brain dead at worst? Are my questions the product of a critical thinking deficit or am I so utterly brain dead that any possible BBB implications would be rendered moot because of it? I would love to share your optimism... what part of my concern is bogus, and why? Please keep your answer within the parameters of what a grade 13 biology student could comprehend lest you overwhelm my limited critical thinking threshold.

You know that wasn't how it was sold right? And you also know that the accompanying rhetoric and ridicule bridging the information gulf between initial distribution talking points and your quoted comments (above) was the result of a media sales job worthy of serious admiration from those who study such things... right?. ' I'm also guessing you know that your statement (in and of itself) is not what's generally acceptable in terms of vaccine efficacy... right? I foolishly expected a bit more humility from folks who changed the very definition of vaccine to account for the magnitude of observed variance from nominal. And to this day, I remain gobsmacked by the hardline opinions of people who willingly defend a scientific position they can't even begin to discuss rationally at a grade 9 biology level. This is where I disagree with WestCanMan, this was easily accomplished (with a liberal sprinkling of fear), we learned absolutely nothing from the process, we will ultimately hold no one accountable in their lifetime, and we will absolutely/positively do this again in the future.

Agreed, but I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that regardless of the eventual outcome, it most definitely will happen again. I'll also suggest that it's far easier to deploy (even by accident as in the case of the NS wolf thing) than most people think. The closer the alignment between the unholy trinity of government, security services (including intelligence) and the media, the more credible the end product is... it isn't hard to accomplish either, any of us here could do it. I watched the trucker protest with a sense of awe, off topic maybe but it's analogues because it doesn't matter what your views are on the protest itself, the methodology, or the intent. Eventually there will be books written about this... the famous Nazi flag was visible only briefly and from a discreet angle, and who happened to be right there at the right time and place to capture that image? Then, without a shred of evidence, CBC reported about foreign actors (with evil intent) financially supporting the convoy Go Fund Me efforts... the government then jumped on that report with both feet, all but tripping in their eagerness to use it. Now, does anyone actually believe that a government intelligence analyst couldn't determine the voracity of that claim over a single cup of coffee? Or even better, that the government actually needed CBC to inform them about it? They simply wanted open source evidence that was actionable regardless of whether it was true or not. That open source certainly didn't add an air of credibility either, in fact, it detracted from it... big time. And POOF, all the fact checkers suddenly went into hibernation, no doubt exhausted by the effort they put into Covid. Lot's of examples that make all this fun to watch Those 50 analysts and the media effort behind Hunters laptop is actually my fav... it was fun to watch them backpedal using the very escape valve deliberately built into the assertion at the time of its deployment. Likely just a coincidence eh? LOL, how many of those guys got great jobs out of that?

For reasons that escape me, people have so much emotional baggage invested in this that whoever is ultimately proven wrong will deny it on principle and ridicule all supporting evidence without making the slightest effort to understand the science behind it. It's rare now to find someone open to being convinced and willing to modify their opinion as facts present themselves. It's like snake cult vs sun cult... potentially, that's a bigger problem than the source of the virus itself IMO. I don't know the answer, but the lab was known to be conducting GOF testing on the same virus and in the fall of 2019 two lab workers were hospitalized with Covid. Who knows, maybe they were licking cages in the wet market a few days earlier. So even though I don't know the definitive answer, I have my suspicions. However, those suspicions are tempered by the fact that it doesn't matter what the source is/was anymore... does it? And if so how? We now have the possibility of potential long term health effects as a result of the vaccine itself and perversely, all of the rhetoric only serves to entrench the opinions of those unable to discuss the biology of it at a basic high school level. At this point (and by design IMO) it's nothing more than a distraction which only serves to recruit additional cult members. The real beneficiaries here are behaviourists and information management organizations. There are actually courses in deploying and promoting the very divisions and polarizations on display here. That alone should provide incentive for people to take the entire sordid mess with a huge grain of cautionary salt... yet they don't, which is actually the point of it in the first place. If you don't believe that, simply go back in time and look at the coordinated efforts to ridicule, de-platform, fire and abuse anyone who even suggested the possibility. Careers were wrecked over that and those deliberately doing the wrecking (in a premeditated scientific manner easily recognized by graduates of similar courses) now shrug as if they had no part in it. Cool eh? It's almost enough to make me self identify as 19 and join the military again.

Or burning it for that matter... I might not like it but I accept that (subject to legalities imposed by hate laws) freedom of speech and expression must apply to things I don't like in order to be worth defending. On the other hand, compelling me (or any other person or entity) to fly or not fly a particular flag against my (or their) will is another thing entirely. This is where wild eyed progressives earn their loon feathers and lose the plot entirely. It's also the point where kind strangers who fed the loons when they were starving say "GO FISH." IMO, that nonsense has generated the well deserved and long overdue backlash we're beginning to see now. There simply isn't enough lipstick, pantyhose, or hormone blocker on the planet to allow compelled expression to masquerade as free and no amount of screaming is likely to convince me to feed baby loons next spring. How do ya like me now Herb?

Apparently the town is so small it doesn't even have a city owned flagpole. Cool eh? Good to see the mayor simply say NO though. That reaction is likely to become more common in future, people will simply refuse to play along. Since the alphabet folk refused to take yes for an answer they now need to develop the coping skills to deal with HELL NO.... nothing like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I can't help but be utterly astounded at how hard they worked at losing the support of tolerant people who previously wished them well. In the entire history of tactical miscalculations, this one was probably the easiest to anticipate and avoid. "Selection and maintenance of the aim" clearly got lost on the way to that hearing.

OK, that was your takeaway eh? Sort of like this. Weaponizing "rights" (I'm using rights for lack of a better word here) and spitting them in the face of the goodnatured people who helped in achieving them strikes me as a guaranteed recipe for backlash. Why not take the win and accept yes as an answer? Why turn the reasonable, easily supportable quest for equality and acceptance into something that previous supporters now want crushed? And crushed is exactly the right word here iMO... It just strikes me as unnecessary, inappropriate, and manifestly foolish. All ya had to do was not be bat sh%$ crazy and I'd still be on your side. Other than schools and universities, WOKE has suffered (and will continue to suffer) heavy broadside volleys and the boarding party is standing by. Speaking personally, I now want schools and universities cut off at the knees, just above the woke line to prevent further infection. Since you worked hard to achieve that, I'm wondering why because it takes me back to my original question: WTF did you think was going to happen?

My goodness I'd forgotten about that, I used to love that commercial. "Rice Krispies... what the heck did you think they were made of." And even though it didn't make sense, a lot of tolerant people went along with it anyway, and by doing so, conveyed an aura of legitimacy to outrageous follow on demands. And instead of being content with the good natured support on offer from well meaning people who (at the time) wished them the best and wanted to see them live their lives in peace, they morphed into a mob of ugly monsters bent on forcing their views down the throats of the old school liberals who (initially) supported their quest. That's changed now IMO... at least for me. They refused to stop after they'd had won a resounding victory... they refused to take yes for an answer. It qualifies as the biggest tactical miscalculation i've seen in a lifetime of observing tactical miscalculations. In future, the answer from me is no... and not just no, the new answer is HELL NO.

Beauty... there are people here who need to write that last sentence on a blackboard 1,000 times. As long absent chickens return to a structurally weakened roost in large numbers, I find myself repeatedly asking the same question: "WTF did you think was going to happen?"

It's an old story, oft repeated. Here's a taste of it. Expect the source to be attacked. I can't speak to the accuracy of it but I'm pretty sure it's not worth debating with people who believe in chemtrails. But that's just me. Ya, I see you reaching for the keyboard, right back at ya taxman...

That's the crux of the issue IMO. Hamas has religious objectives, not political ones... unless and until the world is willing to reduce the nation of Israel to a pile of rubble there is simply no negotiating with them. For Canadiens who haven't spent a significant amount of time there (on both sides of the wall), it's a concept they simply can't relate to even though many of them are estranged from their own family members for manifestly trivial offences in comparison. Watch right here, the same people can't even discuss this politely The historical perspective always comes up and it's certainly interesting from an academic perspective, but, it remains largely irrelevant when viewed through a lens of metaphorical reality that considers weather, terrain, and opposing forces in the here and now. The Palestinians I talked to know exactly what happened to them, to their fathers, and to their grandfathers... the nuances of history are rarely discussed (in my case never) over sweet tea. It's the reason I've used the murderous neighbour analogy ever since my first UN tour there as a table top resolution exercise for history buffs... it's also the reason I never get an answer. That analogy is neither off topic or a red herring as long as Hamas remains the governing entity in Gaza. There are 3 options with that neighbour when he's out on parole for fire bombing your house and poisoning your dog: you move out, he moves out, or you both fight it out. Hamas has to go... and even then the task is daunting. From a year ago but a single year is like yesterday... or today... or even tomorrow:

As I recall, the Budapest Memorandum didn't anticipate or address aspirations to join NATO. I thought it even had a clause about neutrality... I won't argue the point though since I don't have time to look it up. None the less, NATO has been less help to Ukraine than I expected, and certainly less (by far) than the minimum effort required to prevail. When viewed through that lens, I suppose you could say that NATO lied too. My question remains though, did you really think that having both Ukraine and the home of the Russian Black Sea Fleet (Crimea) under a NATO banner would result in nothing more than a nod and a wink from a hot Russian milk maid? I sure didn't. I'd also point out that having a certain affinity for milk maids doesn't make me a Russian asset either...

If you can't answer a simple question how do you expect to solve a complex problem? I first deployed there in 1977 and I've been asking that self same question ever since... your response is as standard as it is unremarkable; I have yet to get a coherent answer to it. You could have been first, Instead you joined a large club with many members, all of them screaming, all of them carrying signs on sticks and none of them willing to discuss the issue with anything other than slogans written on the signs they carry. I'll leave you to your silence and enjoy the sound of it... knowing it's only temporary.